WHY WE LIKE WHAT WE LIKE

Imagine that there is a path from the most basic system that you might like to the most extravagent, perfect system.

All along this path lies systems that you like at their price – you pay a little more, you get closer to your perfect system.

This path is multi-dimensional, in that there are systems that you like that are slightly off the path, for example in the direction of having a little more bass than that which that point, that price, on the path requires. This wiggle off the path in one direction requires a wiggle away from one or more other directions, for example more bass might entail less microdynamics.

It is my beleif that the Path is the same for everyone but that the acceptable wiggles, deviations, from the path are personal, different for each person.

It is also my belief that large deviations from the path, systems that over-emphasize a particular sonic feature at the significant sacrifice of one or more others, are folly.

Examples of such follies are legion, but in abstract terms, this includes the following, common, systems characteristics:

* Over emphasis of detail at the expense of harmonics – very common in less epxensive solidstate and digital sounding systems
* Over emphasis of dynamics at the expense of continuousness and balance – very common in horn-speaker-based systems
* Over emphasis of smoothness at the expense of detail and dynamics – very common with less expensive tube amps, usually on hard to drive speakers

Our Best of Show categories in the CES 2006 show report are fuzzy descriptions of way stations along this path – every stop along the path, every category, should include all the capabilites of the previois categories. This fails for the ‘Impressive’ category because of the energy, design, and room requirements of large amounts of bass.

Our Best of Show systems list systems that seem to be along the Path, deviating, perhaps, from the path in ways that are acceptable, from our point of view.

To illustrate these points, I will describe a few syatems that we like but did not make the Best Of list, and why.

The Oskar Heil speaker system – I love the Oskar Heil speakers; for $6K or less you get a massive amount of musical detail in a very easy to drive load. The only problem is that the bass is not very detailed or all that well integrated with the rest of the frequency spectrum. This is still almost squarely on the path because of the low cost – all the extra ability to render massive amounts of detail of the Heil driver are ‘thrown in for free’.

This year, however, the amp used, presumably in order to control the bass a little better, had a little less harmonic content and continuousness/flow in the midrange – so all the detail revealed by the speakers did not provide the vision into the music that I know the speakers are capable of.

For me, this was a wggle, a deviation too far from the path in the direction of bass control at the expense of harmonics and continuousness and smoothness. But it didn’t wiggle very far so it was a difficult decision whether to put it on the Best Of Show list or not – and I am STILL pondering it.

Another example is both the Lamm / Wilson and Kharma / ASR systems:

At these price points we are very far down the path. There are a lot more stringent requirements to be on the Path at this level. Some of these are the ability to handle complex passages while maintaining separation of the individual notes (it doesn’t just collapse into a molassus of noise) and image stability (two or more instruments playing at the same time should have as solid and cohernet of an image as when they were playing solo). These two systems failed in this way.

These systems apparently traded scale and bass and impressiveness for these capabilities. But I feel these capabilities are necessary to be on the path at this level (and even at somewhat lower levels). The restriction that only simple music can be played, or that one must close one’s mental ears during complex passages is not acceptable at this level, and that to get back on the Path these capabilies need to be restored, perhaps at the expense of a little bass or adding a few more $ (for example adding vibration control platforms underneath the components or trying different combinations of cables, perhaps even the same brands, and seeing if this might do the trick).

Well, this is getting long. Hope this helps answer a few questions…

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ASCERTAINING THE ABSOLUTE QUALITY OF A COMPONENT

The logic goes like this: a component has to be part of a system in order to be heard, and also that every system system has flaws.

These system imperfections can:

* Cover up what the component does best

* Conceal flaws in the component.

* Be counter-balanced by the imperfections of the component (i.e. the component can cover up flaws in the system)

This why equipment reviews should be comparative, for example:

* component A sounds leaner than component B

* component A communicates more detail than component B

and even value judgments are OK here, for example:

* component A sounds less natural than component B

Even better would be to give some context:

* component A has better control of the bass than component B in my bass-resonance-rich listening room and with the X amplifier, which is under-damped is comparison to most amplifiers evaluated here, driving these same speakers.

And finally, and of course these kind of conclusions can be wrapped up in many pages of expository brilliance (no, I am not being catty, I wish I just had a couple o’ them drops of expository brilliance, or even just the time to read them)

* speaker A has better control of the bass than speaker B playing tracks 1, 2 and 3 on the CD that contains lots of information in the 60 – 100 Hz range produced by an electric bass in a studio environment, when driven by amplifier X, known to be under-damped in comparison with most amps, notably the X, Y and Z which audiophiles might be expected to also use with these speakers, in my bass-resonance-loving room of dimensions HxWxD, with interconnects known to less detailed than most, including the more often recommended C1 and C2 cables, which might themselves rob the bass of some detail and control, and with speaker cables that smear information in the time domain causing a lack of punch in comparison with all speaker cables evaluated here, ever….

This should make the obvious even more obvious, that the more perfect a system is, the less excuses and qualifications the description of a component’s sound in that system has to have.

Next: Why oh why do good systems seem to go spontaneously bad?

A SARCASTIC LOOK AT THE RELATIVE NATURE OF QUALITY

If component A is better than component B and component B is better than component C, is component A always better than component C?

Skipping any speculation on the answer to that question, how about the transitive nature of ‘almost is as good as’.

This ‘almost as good as’ is treated as a transitive relation on the web a lot, and it has a tendency to sneak in to all of our thinking patterns from time to time.

It goes like this:

Component B is 95% as good as component A, and component A is the almost universally acknowledged best available component of its type. And guess what, component B only costs half as much as component A. Ignoring the fact that that 5% is what separates great from very good – this logic invariably concludes that component B is a really good deal.

Ok, fine, if it was left there. But then comes:

Component C, when modded by Mr. Mod, is 95% as good as component B, and it is only 1/2 the price of component B.. an even better deal! And this usually fractures into the fact that any modder, not just Mr. Mod, can take component C to within 5%, or so, of component B.

No we are not done.

It turns out that, component D, E, and F, also when modded, are also around that 90-95% as good as component B range. And those can be gotten really, really, really cheap used.

And here is where it gets weird … 🙂

It appears first as a speculation, then as a fact, that, you remember that component A? Is is really all that good? That is really a lot of money they are asking for it. Is anything really worth that price. And….

Is component A really better than component B… or even better than component F for that matter.. Hey, it is all in the Ear of the Beholder, right? And didn’t that fella we never heard of before say that the Sony/Denon/Radio Shack item sounded better in their system (who cares that their system sucked as a review system)? We all know these differences are just all hype, right, put out by the reviewers, dealers, and manufacturers.

So hear you have it, component F, modded by just about anybody putting up an ad on the net, is as good as, and maybe even better, than the best in the world.

Let’s all go out and buy one!

For the final twist:

Then rumors start being posted about the $60 component, that if you are lucky enough to get the one out of very ten units that is better than it has any right to be… just happens to be 95% as good as…

Well, you can imagine where it goes from there…

Next: How can you judge the quality of a component in an imperfect system – and, there being no perfect system, how can you judge the quality of any component ever?